>Num 13:33 is part of the bad report of the unbelieving Israelite scouts, a bad>report which is characterised by exaggerations due to fear (see for yourself in>verses 30-33). Hence we must "consider the source". It is part of literary>competence to recognise the angle an author wants to put on a participant in>narrative, and in the OT this angle is commonly expressed by reported speech.>Thus the mention of the Nephilim here, far from being evidence of their>surviving the flood, is evidence of the disbelief of the scouts - a disbelief>which spread throughout the Israelite community.

Dear Jack,

You bring up an excellent point. How much credibility do we attach to
a bad report? If this was the only account or reference to these kinds
of people, I think we could dismiss it or attach only minimal significance.
In this case there is additional corroboration.

In Deuteronomy 2:10,11, "The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people
great and many, and tall as the Anakims: which also were accounted giants,
as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims." This was Moses speaking,
not a frightened spy. Also in Deuteronomy 2:20,21, "That also was accounted
a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call
them Zamzummims; a people great and many and tall as the Anakims; but the
Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their
stead."

Further, Joshua mentions "remnant of the giants," "giants," or "valley of
the giants" (See Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16). Although
post-flood Emims, Anakims, or Zamzummims cannot be identified as
Sumerians, Persians, or even Egyptians they also do not appear to be any
of Noah's kin either. So I think post-flood peoples outside of Adamic
and Noahic ancestry is clearly implied by the biblical text, unless one
wished to make a counter-argument solely from bombast, not an entirely
uncommon theological device.